Tessera
Folgen

Julia Eberlen

@juliaeberlen.bsky.social

Research Support Staff @ulbruxelles.bsky.social, interested in way too many things, including open science & research integrity, social & cognitive psychology, science communication, and anything fiber related. https://milgram.ulb.be/

91 Posts141 Follower242 Folgt
Paul Smaldino@psmaldino.bsky.social · 3w ago

I had a paper accepted and learned that PNAS got rid of their free, “closed access” (preprint ok) option - they now charge at least $3K to publish because they are greedy little pigs who have no shame.

PNAS charges $5575 for immediate access at $3925 for delayed open access, because they are greedy pigs without shame.
Julia Eberlen@juliaeberlen.bsky.social · 3mo ago

This book is excellent if you ever need arguments on why the social sciences and humanities are an integral part of progress and why the efforts to defund them are even more catastrophic than one might think! No social sciences => no cure can get where it needs to be, no humanities => no John Green.

Julia M. Rohrer@dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 3mo ago

Just started listening to “Everything is Tuberculosis” (which is great so far) and TIL the three 19yo assassins of Franz Ferdinand all suffered from tuberculosis and while they couldn’t be legally executed due to their age, they all eventually died of the disease before the war ended.

Cover of the audiobook version of “Everything is Tuberculosis” by John Green
Julia Eberlen@juliaeberlen.bsky.social · 5mo ago

In science (and in life I guess) every tool or method we use can be misused. It’s rarely the tool‘s fault that the user has ill intentions. Some are easier to misuse and therefore arguably could be changed, but nothing absolves us from our responsibility to be honest researchers.

Julia Eberlen@juliaeberlen.bsky.social · 8mo ago

Using an LLM to write a research proposal will not give you a competitive edge, it will just make it harder for reviewers to identify the quality of your ideas behind all the shiny words. Don't make it harder for them to appreciate *your* work.

Julia Eberlen@juliaeberlen.bsky.social · 9mo ago

I met him at the EASP conference in Granada, 2017. Were it not for my own network, I’d think until today that he’s an honorable cornerstone of social psychology. Speaking up is important, *especially* for senior, male colleagues, and not only once these investigations are published

Post nicht verfügbar.
Julia Eberlen@juliaeberlen.bsky.social · 10mo ago

FAIR data management: I have talked extensively to researchers about file naming conventions and its benefits, and I understand it is not in any way an exciting topic. But until I no longer receive files CallY_draftX I will keep talking. This is a unique file name on *your* computer, not on mine.

a picture of a cartoon character with the words " ha ha " on it

Alt: a GIF of the depressed cartoon character Bernd the bread with the words "Haha We are Bernd, resistance is useless"

media.tenor.com

Alex Holcombe@alexh.bsky.social · 10mo ago

Today's email to an associate editor, declining to review for a big corporate publisher. This one focuses on Nature Publishing Group's practice of funneling rejected manuscripts to their newer journals with hefty APCs.

Dear Dr. [redacted], It was nice to meet you at the [redacted]! Thanks for thinking of me as a possible reviewer, as I am interested in the topic. However, I decline to review this manuscript - I often do this in the case of journals published by profiteering corporate publishers. For Nature Communications, Nature Publishing Group charges an outrageous US$6990 to authors that has little to do with higher-quality service or journal processes and lots to do with a legacy first-mover advantage that it uses to exploit academia. This is rentier capitalism. NPG funnels papers they reject from their most prestigious outlets to their newer subsidiary journals such as Nature Communications and Nature Communications Psychology, which academics go along with because they don’t (directly) foot the bill, and because, given the pressure academics are under to publish rapidly, they wish to take advantage of the reviews they may have already received from the higher-tier Nature journal. Because we are now live in a world where most studies can eventually be published somewhere, NPG has been able to exploit this by creating their own lower-tier journals and charging high-aspiration authors for the convenience. This practice conflicts with my interest in universities and funders not wasting their money, which is why I do not wish to support it by contributing to the hundreds of millions of dollars of labor that academics donate to corporate publishers. Instead, I preferentially review, and volunteer as an editor for, diamond open access journals that are free to read and publish in. For various reasons, including combating this strategy by which corporate publishers are extending the era in which they profiteer from university funds, many academics and funders now advocate for the Publish->Review->Curate model, in which academics publish their work immediately (on preprint servers, which prevents gatekeeping by editors), and then get it peer reviewed, preferably through low-cost…
Julia Eberlen@juliaeberlen.bsky.social · 10mo ago

Fits well with positioning themselves as research-only in the beginning: they used data that otherwise wouldn't have been available. Who would have known they would move to for-profit? Now, they use copyrighted content until the the lawsuits are over, by then, their models are well-trained.

The Wall Street Journal@wsj.com · 10mo ago

Exclusive: OpenAI is planning to release a new version of its Sora video generator, which creates videos featuring copyrighted material unless copyright holders opt out of having their work appear.

Julia Eberlen@juliaeberlen.bsky.social · 10mo ago

So it appears we moved from “this could have been an email” to LLM-generated essay-length emails where the receiver spends double the time saved by the sender to identify the relevant information. Can we go back to phone calls please?